Learners: Grades 7 – 10 (lesson plan can be adapted accordingly) Self: Dave & Laura Context: Year-long, public middle/secondary school Community: High-immigrant/low-economic community and affluent regional school district
PURPOSE
Students will be able to: - locate and evaluate online sources for the purposes of developing a debate style argument - synthesize information in order to argue for or against an idea, citing specific evidence - learn and apply aspects of productive in-person and online conversations
Standards: CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.9-10.1 Write arguments to support claims and analysis of substantive topics or texts using valid reasoning and sufficient evidence.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.9-10.1 Sight strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.9-10.8 Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text assessing whether the reasoning is valid and the evidence is relevant and sufficient. Identity false statements and fallacious reasoning.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.9-10.1a Come to discussions prepared, having read and researched material under study; explicitly draw on that preparation by referring to evidence from texts and other research on the topic or issue to stimulate a thoughtful, well-reasoned exchange of ideas.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.9-10.6 Adapt speech to a variety of contexts and tasks, demonstrating command of formal English when indicated or appropriate
TASK/ACTIVITY:
Prior to the beginning of this lesson, students will be taught to critically evaluate sources. They will also be taught how to assess source relevance and appropriateness, verify the author’s credentials and any potential biases the author might bring and to cross-reference other reliable sources to determine accuracy.
We will begin the unit with an exploration of how to identify reputable online sources using the fake activism website devoted to the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus: http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/
Students will explore the various components of this site and deconstruct the elements that are misleading and make the site appear reputable. They will be guided through this deconstruction process using the following handout:
After students have been walked through how to assess sources through the aforementioned activity, they will be taught how to hold a debate, the appropriate language to use during the debate, the different roles/responsibilities participants assume in a debate and what sentence prompts they can use to open their arguments, respectfully communicate their points, refute an opponent’s points and conclude their arguments. See the following Power Point for the debate lesson plan:
After students have been taught how to debate, in the same lesson they will engage in an informal debate (read: non-researched debate based on personal experience and general knowledge claims) on the topic: Should capital punishment still exist. At the end of the debate, students will reflect on what transpired in the debate.
Possible discussion questions for reflection include:
Did students listen to each other? What was the effect?
Was respectful language used? If not, what happened as a result?
Comment on the overall quality of the discussion when only personal experiences and general knowledge were used to support the claims raised in the discussion?
Students will then be divided into groups of six to engage in their own formal debates, however, this time the debates will occur in an online forum.
The class will be broken up into four smaller groups and assigned one of the following four topics to research: are social networking sites good for our society; is the use of standardized tests improving education in America; should the drinking age be lowered; do violent video games contribute to youth violence?
After the students have been assigned (or chosen) their topics, they will be shown the following website: http://www.procon.org/ and walked through the features of the site. The information and sources provided on this site will be deconstructed re: their reliability based on the following online reading/research guide that asks students to identify important items like author’s credentials and biases:
Students will then be instructed to take the online reading/research guide and do some research of their own. In addition to the ProCon website, the students will be required to find at least three additional reputable sources to include in their debate.
As a tool to help students, they will be directed to: http://edu.symbaloo.com/mix/debateresearch where webmixes have been created for each topic. Here the students will be walked through how to sign upfor symbaloo and use the site, curating their information in one place.
Once they are in the program, they will be directed to their topic/webmix wall and asked to sign-up and use https://www.diigo.com/ to annotate and highlight their sources and then link their diigo notes to their webmix page in order to share their information with their debate group. Students will use the following screencast to learn about diigo:
Finally, the students will learn how to use the discussion forum tool using the following screencast:
They will be walked through the following model post: http://digiuri.yuku.com/topic/7/Debate-Instructions-and-Model-Post and reminded how to positively and productively conduct themselves in an online forum: what language to use, how to include various sources to support claims and how to structure particular responses.
The groups will also be assigned the following debate roles (either by the teacher or the groups can self-assign):
- Claim checkers: these students check claims are supported by facts and then check the sources (all students)
- Moderators: moderate how students positively interact with one another (all students)
- Opening arguments (one for each side. These people also need to make 2 rebuttal statements, supported with evidence)
- Rebuttal people (these people make 3 rebuttals)
- Closing arguments (one for each side. These people also need to make 2 rebuttal statements, supported with evidence)
When the students have chosen their topic and been assigned their roles, they will spend time both in class and at home to research their topic, marking up their web links using diigo and linking their information to the central symbaloo site in order to share their information, knowledge and resources with their group mates. If there are some more tech. savvy students in the class, a possible extension activity would be to have the students synthesize some of the supporting statistics into an infographic using www.infogr.am/
Students will then spend time crafting their opening arguments. In order to tap into students' out of school literacies (and mirror many of the writing restrictions common in the online world), the opening arguments will be limited to 140 characters, as in a Tweet, and posted on the forum.
The online debate schedule will then be as follows:
Monday: Opening arguments posted
Tuesday, Wednesday Thursday: Rebuttals
Friday: Closing arguments
Over the weekend: Two individual reflections will be written – the first, a written response comparing the face-to-face debate and the online discussion forum debate (the affordances and drawbacks of both). Students will specifically address the following questions and writing prompts: what did you like and dislike about each format when engaging in a deliberative discussion/debate? Students may reference the synchronous aspect of a face-to-face discussion versus the asynchronous aspect of the online format. Students may also discuss how messages can be misinterpreted in online space where context, voice inflection, body language and so on are removed. They may also reference and deconstruct the informal, unsupported in-class debate they had at the beginning of the unit and compare the structure/the way that debate transpired versus the well-supported online discussion. How did having evidence elevate the quality of the debate, the points raised and the overall interactions?
The second reflection requires the students to use screencast-o-matic. Using the audio/video recording features, students will go to the discussion forum and provide a brief analysis of their debate, their contributions and what transpired. Did students apply the debating and productive discussion format they were taught? Was it effective? Why or why not?
Longterm/cross subject application of these online debates: students will have the skills to positively interact with one another in an online forum, bring in reputable sources to advance the conversation and engage in knowledge generation.
CONTENT
Topics: Are social networking sites good for our society; Should the death penalty be used; Is the use of standardized tests improving education in America; Should the drinking age be lowered; Do violent video games contribute to youth violence
Texts: Scholarly articles, online newspapers, scholarly journal articles, original manuscripts scanned into an online database, infographics, images and photos from reputable news sources
PEDAGOGY
Instructional Strategies: Guided discovery, Inquiry based learning, Problem based learning, Scaffolding, Modeling, Independent research, Collaborative learning, Peer teaching, Active Learning, Think-alouds, Meta-cognitive reflection practices
Work Products: In-class structured debate, online structured debate, students research and planning notes from the scaffolded guided research.
How Measure: Students will be evaluated both in-class and online. Two rubrics will be provided to evaluate the students on the following…
In-person:
4: Lead the debate by making multiple clear claims that were well supported with specific and thought- provoking detail. Student spoke clearly and respectfully, directly responding to ideas made by fellow classmates.
3: Participated by speaking in class, has made a clear claim that has been supported by relevant and accurate detail. The student spoke clearly and respectfully.
2: Student spoke less than twice in the debate, but used supporting details. Student spoke clearly and/or respectfully, but not in the majority of circumstances.
1: Student only made unsupported claims, did not speak clearly and/or respectfully throughout the debate.
On-line:
4: Lead the debate by making multiple clear claims that were well supported with specific and thought- provoking detail. Student wrote clearly and respectfully, directly responding to ideas made by fellow classmates.
3: Participated by writing in class, has made a clear claim that has been supported by relevant and accurate detail. The student wrote clearly and respectfully.
2: Student wrote less than twice in the debate, but used supporting details. Student wrote clearly and/or respectfully, but not in the majority of circumstances.
1: Student only made unsupported claims, did not speak clearly and/or respectfully throughout the debate.
Cool Tool Review and Lesson:
Below you'll find a link to download my review of the Screencast O'Matic tool. This tool has a bevy of applications, but I think one of its most important uses for student learning is working on metacognition so that students can watch themselves "think" and other students can see how peers mentally approach a similar task. My mini-lesson uses this Screencast O'Matic as part of an inquiry based approach to exploring the impact of Hammurabi's Code of Law. Exhibit A is a graphic organizer that is used in conjunction with this project.
1) Describe some of the digital literacies that you learned about this week. What did you know about these topics before the week began and how have this week’s experiences contributed to your understanding of these digital literacies?
Those of you who have made it through our Design Studio project have read enough. I want to give your eyes a rest and give you the opportunity to listen to the soothing sound of my voice. My mother tells me I have the perfect face for Podcasts. :-) Enjoy.
2) Now that you’ve had this professional development experience, how are you defining “digital literacy?” What is your personal perspective on digital literacy and how has your definition changed or evolved this week? Where possible, make specific connections to readings, conversations, presentations, or activities that were especially important to the evolution of your definition of digital literacy.
As I reflected back on my time at the Summer Institute, I realized that my original definition of digital literacy, like the Prezi, was just the tip of the ice berg. I've created this Prezi to articulate my growth over the week.
3) How do digital literacies affect the way you think about academic content? Describe an example of how some specific academic content is affected by changes in the ways we read, write and think with digital media texts, tools & technologies.
4) How do digital literacies affect teaching practices? What overarching considerations must teachers give, in general, to the interactions of digital literacies and how to teach? Now, focus on your own pedagogical practice. How will your new understanding of digital literacy affect the way you teach? Describe an example of how you will differently employ a specific teaching practice in your own context as a result of what you learned this week.
As I reflected on these questions, my thoughts kept turning back to the Harris and Hoffer Article Instructional Planning Activity Types as Vehicles for Curriculum-Based TPACK Development. Much like the authors, I believe that use of technology in the classroom should be dependent on content and pedagogical goals. The article identifies three overlaps of technology, pedagogy and content knowledge: Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) or how to teach particular content-based material, Technical Content Knowledge (TCK) or selecting technology to communicate content knowledge, and Technical Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK )or the use of technology when teaching based on pedagogical goals. (pg.2) To effectively implement this TPAC approach, one must “begin with the end in mind” and select the desired learning outcomes prior to considering what technology to use. The rationale is to avoid instruction that is “technocentric” where the tools and applications are driving the learning goals rather using technology as a tool to obtain greater understanding. (Papert, 1987).
Previously, I have been guilty of being the technocentric teacher. In a desire to increase engagement or impress administrators, I have wedged digital tools into lessons for the sake of using technology. I built a lesson around SmartResponse clickers for one of my evaluations to show how I was using technology in the classroom. I designed a list of 7 questions that, due to the nature of this technology, had to be multiple choice. Given the time it took for the students to activate their clickers, cycle through the questions and give appropriate wait time, the activity burned 20 minutes of class time and the end result was that they could answer lower-level Blooms content questions. While engagement was high and admin was pleased, I look back at the activity and think we could have better utilized that time with a class discussion centered around a single essential question.
Over the last year, I have shifted away from selecting tools until I have considered what I want my students to be able to do. The institute has only reinforced these beliefs. My preferred method is open-ended inquiry projects where students are able to research content-related question of their choice and while also deciding the preferred method of sharing what they have learned. Question design often overwhelms students, as they are accustomed to answering questions, not posing them. Also, the freedom to chose the method of communication can be a daunting one. As a teacher, I adjust to this anxiety by giving a “menu” of presentation options based on certain skills they need to develop, rather than an endless buffet. The Harris and Hofer article presents a comprehensive list of pedagogically sound activity types and potential tech tools to complete those activities. My students have created a wide variety of authentic end products ranging from museum exhibit design, to video news program to building a multimedia wikispace on ancient civilizations. While I do not let the tools drive the inquiry process or products, I keep an open mind to review new tools that will create thought provoking opportunities for students to be innovative and creative.
In summary, teachers face a daunting task of selecting the right technology for the right educational purpose. As Harris and Hofer explain, having knowledge of just content and pedagogy is not enough to be an effective educator. Teachers must think of themselves as connoisseurs of educational tools, both digital and traditional, holding out for the right ones for their students. They must be savvy enough to weave through the abundance of tech marketing and the overcome the fear of “falling behind” on the latest tools. As Shawn Rubin reminded us during the Teacher Leader Panel, trying to keep up with technology is an exercise in futility. The TPAC model is a powerful heuristic so to aid in this process so that education will remain technology enhanced rather than technology driven.
5) During the week, you were introduced to several concerns and promising practices around digital literacy, digital pedagogy, social networking, and student voice that are circulating among communities of educators, librarians, and youth media specialists. From your perspective, what promising practices show the most potential? Which specific concerns are most pressing? What key takeaways will you champion in your own work setting(s) so that together, you and your colleagues can (a) implement promising practices and (b) address issues of concern?
I saw this Prezi template and thought it was a perfect match for the question. Both the promising practices and the great concerns carry significant weight and often seem to be on the verge of colliding. The solution, much like the one in this Prezi, lies somewhere in the middle.
6) During the week, you were introduced to several concerns and promising practices around digital literacy, digital pedagogy, social networking, and student voice that are circulating among communities of educators, librarians, and youth media specialists. From your perspective, what promising practices show the most potential? Which specific concerns are most pressing? What key takeaways will you champion in your own work setting(s) so that together, you and your colleagues can (a) implement promising practices and (b) address issues of concern?
Digital Literacies in Context:
Big Idea 1: We have a strong desire to be connected, but only on our own terms – Turkle
Big Idea 2: Digital technology was supposed to allow us to work in asyncrhonos time, but instead of giving us more time, connectivity has created an endless stream of interruption. -- Rushkoff
One might think the opening to a Digital Literacy Institute would start with readings that were gung-ho about using technology. However, this audience didn’t need convincing. While I didn't recognize it after the fact, these reading were exactly what I needed given some of my habits. Doug Rushkoff and Sharon Turkle’s presentations serve as a crucial reminder of the consequences of blindly using technology.
Turkle’s talk focuses on the impact that technology has had on human relationships. She argues that digital technology has allowed us to stay connected, but on our own terms. We give our attention in only the amounts we want to provide, but assume everyone is listening. The goal is to never feel alone. However, the use of technology has actually made feel more alone as we avoid conversation and opt for text communication. We forget that by having conversations with others, it allows us to learn more about ourselves. These conversations cannot occur in “sips” of status updates or tweets, but only during face-to-face interactions.It is in understanding ourselves that we can be comfortable being by ourself. Thus it becomes increasingly dangerous for children to constantly be engaged in text conversation as they most need to learn how to socialize and converse.
While Ruskoff’s other writings share Turkle’s views, his book Present Shock focuses more on how technology has changed perception of human time. He argues that that instead of looking towards the future, we live in a constant “ 'now' where the priorities of this moment seem to be everything.” (Rushkoff.com) In the late 80's, Rushkoff believed that technology was going to give extended time to communicate. We could download our emails, read and then thoughtfully reply. However, the lingering aspects of the Industrial Age, corporations shifted the use of digital technology for profit, which has resulted in the always-on, consistent desire to be connected as Turkle references in her speech. Digital technology has changed us, he argues, and not for the better.
The solution Rushkoff and Turkle provide is simple but not easy. Reframe our mindset to reform technology to our lives rather than letting technology reform us. I think this dovetails nicely into the education realm and the Haris and Hofer article on TPACK. As educators, we should be purposeful in our use of technology in the classroom, allowing pedagogy to guide our decisions to use, or not use, digital technology. If we can model this thoughtful use of technology to our students we can teach them to selectively use these tools to create a better and sustainable world.
Generating Questions
Essential questions are a pedagogy that a lot of teachers think they implement well, but often do not. Grant Wiggins points out two of the primary reasons why in his article. A) He observes many EQs that are inch or two deep and in order to get to a single right answer. B) The teacher is the only one who is referring to the EQ on a regular basis. I know that I’ve been guilty of (B) on several occasions in my career. Wiggins also laments that he rarely sees the transfer of ownership in questions from teacher to student. I believe this happens because both teachers and students have been trained that a successful class is one in which everyone is able to answer questions on a test. A teacher feels responsible for imparting knowledge to the student, thus the strong desire for control.
However, I know in my heart that the best classes are the ones where we start out with several questions and end the class with entirely new ones. I think Bowker addresses why teachers and students alike enjoy these classes is because we’ve rediscovered the “enjoyment, meaning and value in questions.” The challenge becomes developing a “tolerance for ambiguity” for the class. Bowker explains that success hinges on the idea that “classroom environment must be free, but not too free; safe, but not too safe. The tone may be playful and creative, but the classroom needs enough regularity that chaos is controlled, so students can think, converse, listen, and question without feeling either lost or crushed.” (Bowker, 2010)
While a classroom meeting his description would be fertile ground for students questioning, the process is still a challenge that takes continuous work and patience. One area of research interest is inquiry teaching and models to help students develop deep questions. These readings reflect what I have seen in my own classroom from both teachers and students struggling to deal with the initial ambiguity of searching for answers. It’s akin to the anxiety felt when one is swimming and can no longer touch the bottom. There’s safety in staying in the shallow end, but really discovery comes when one-steps outside of their comfort zone. My goal is to develop ways for both teachers and students to confidently be able to do that with inquiry projects.
Instructional Strategies
Big Idea: Determine your purpose first, then pick your technology.
The last year of my educational practice has been spent designing project based inquiry tasks, which also fostered digital literacy skills. While the readings were a bit of a refresher, I think they were important to helping me complete the design studio project and also think critically about potential interventions for teaching.
As I discussed in Question 4, I thought the TPACK model was particularly helpful in not only defining the overlapping areas of pedagogy, content and technology, but also reaffirming priorities. While some teachers are technophobic, others are equally technocentric in their lesson designs, which makes the tool the focus rather than student learning goals. Focusing on the cool tool is akin to a lesson focusing on the pencil rather than what is written with it. Teachers must view technology as a means to enhance a content-driven, pedagogically-sound lesson or unit.
One area of interest was the online reading comprehension strategies discussed in Reading as Thinking article by Dr. Coiro. Teachers often assume that students can easily use search engines to find information about a given topic. However, generating search terms and then navigating the options can be challenging or even overwhelming for kids. Further, once a child selects a website, there are additional of locating the information they need and determining it’s relevance or accuracy. It is a multi-step, multi-layered process that is more complex than it appears. What I like about this article is that it addresses solutions to these challenges such as teacher think-aloud and pausing students to think about their own approach to finding information. These methods aim to “begin to internalize a metacognitive awareness of the reading and thinking processes required to read both efficiently and critically on the Internet.”(Coiro, 2010).
Dr. Spires article dovetails nicely into Dr. Coiro’s work as we shift from student comprehension into communication of learning. Dr. Spires advocates for Project Based Inquiry, which is defined as problem solving learning, which builds on authentic real-world problems. Similar to the ideas of Wiggins and Bowker, the model is rooted in a compelling question. Students then must gather, analyze and synthesize data using the online reading comprehension. Typically, teachers would then ask students to write a paper, but in a unique twist, Spires’s study utilizes a unconventional type of digital literacy: Cinéma Veritéen, a film based project. While the evaluative and revision aspects are similar to traditional essays, these multi-media projects have been shown to be far more engaging for students.
While technology is present in all four of the articles, the focus is always on student learning. For my own research I would like to continue to build on the research of Dr. Coiro and Dr. Spires to develop and research additional methods of project based inquiry with the goal of making this approach far more common in our schools.
Next Steps:
I read both Dr. Hobb's Plan of Action and Dr. Gaffney's Enhancing Teachers' Take-up of Digital Content. I found them both to be particularly interesting, but Dr. Gaffney's had a few issues that I wanted to discuss, particularly as to the obstacles that prevent the use of technology in schools. There were several big ideas that were crucial to seeing digital literacy grow within schools.
1) Any technological resource needs to be accessible to the whole class or it is likely teachers will not use it. 2) "The Learning Objects are great, but as long as technology isn't up to part, they are a mirages in the desert" (Ex: a classroom set of laptops in a school with few wireless areohives and low broadband) (pg 7). 3) Teachers felt that technology designers did not adopt the teachers perspective or fully take into account the needs of schools when designing tools. 4) Schools that lack the culture with an openness to change for the betterment of students will have a difficulty adopting technology or any approach that asks people to work in a different manner. 5) Successful implementation of technology requires leadership, access to hard and software, professional development and training and adequate tech support. No singular factor will lead to good use of technology in education, but the combination of all these aspects will greatly increase the chance of success.
Given these findings, the task appears daunting. There are many moving parts to this equation, many of them expensive. I believe that the answer begins with leadership in a model that was presented to us on the last day of the Institute. In closing, Dr. Hobbs spoke to us about her discovery of servant-leadership where leaders of any organization exist to serve the needs (not the wants) of those he or she is desighnated to lead. Using this approach an educational leader can start by seeking his or her early adopter teachers to discover what they will need in their classroom, taking a bottom up vs. a top down approach to technology purposes. A leader must also seek to serve the "technophobe" to uncover and address their fears so he or she has about utilizing technology so the leader can can serve them as well. The leader must probe to what tools teachers need for current instructional practice and clearly show the link between the two. A leader must find educational time for both teachers and students to get the needed training to limit the frustration associated with failure and encourage growth. Most of all, the leader must be able to ask critical questions and listen more than he or she speaks. An authoritarian, top-down leadership approach will only heighten defenses and insecurities about technology use and fracture the staff. If the leader seeks to serve and fosters a culture of dialogue and openness, he or she will find that the use of technology, like the use of any productive tool, will grow organically and eagerly.
7. If you had one more day in the Institute, what would you like to learn more about and why? How will you leverage your professional learning network and your new digital literacies to explore your remaining questions over the coming year?
If I had one more day at the institute, that's the question I'd be asking. Where do we go now? I have some ideas which center around designing a condensed version of the institute model presenting at conferences or schools for PD. That said, I'd like some ideas on how to get started with that. Could we discuss what symbols and media to use to create interest in this topic beyond the like-minded peers? While some schools will be open to this approach, what do we do with the schools that have teachers and administrators feeling like test prep should be the priority? What if the tools I have aren't the tools that my teachers need? To borrow a biblical reference, how do we go and share the Good News?
The answer, I think is found in the question. Leveraging our professional network becomes so important to be successful education leaders. While we are spread out across the country, we can use technology to continue to communicate with each other and share what has worked in our communities. I also think that the network will be vital to the discovery and sharing of new tools. While we had an abundance of new applications to explore, eventually we'll need new ones to meet changing needs. While I wish we had discussed where to look for these new tools, I feel confident that the collective knowledge of our network will be able provide options. If we trust our training, and reflect on our results, we will be sure to find success.
Design Studio Project:
Eliminating the Trolls and Lurkers
Sample Work
Dave Quinn & Laura Morrison
Click here for the pre-production plan
Learners: Grades 7 – 10 (lesson plan can be adapted accordingly)
Self: Dave & Laura
Context: Year-long, public middle/secondary school
Community: High-immigrant/low-economic community and affluent regional school district
PURPOSE
Students will be able to:- locate and evaluate online sources for the purposes of developing a debate style argument
- synthesize information in order to argue for or against an idea, citing specific evidence
- learn and apply aspects of productive in-person and online conversations
Standards: CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.9-10.1 Write arguments to support claims and analysis of substantive topics or texts using valid reasoning and sufficient evidence.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.9-10.1 Sight strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.9-10.8 Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text assessing whether the reasoning is valid and the evidence is relevant and sufficient. Identity false statements and fallacious reasoning.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.9-10.1a Come to discussions prepared, having read and researched material under study; explicitly draw on that preparation by referring to evidence from texts and other research on the topic or issue to stimulate a thoughtful, well-reasoned exchange of ideas.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.9-10.6 Adapt speech to a variety of contexts and tasks, demonstrating command of formal English when indicated or appropriate
TASK/ACTIVITY:
Prior to the beginning of this lesson, students will be taught to critically evaluate sources. They will also be taught how to assess source relevance and appropriateness, verify the author’s credentials and any potential biases the author might bring and to cross-reference other reliable sources to determine accuracy.
We will begin the unit with an exploration of how to identify reputable online sources using the fake activism website devoted to the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus: http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/
Students will explore the various components of this site and deconstruct the elements that are misleading and make the site appear reputable. They will be guided through this deconstruction process using the following handout:
After students have been walked through how to assess sources through the aforementioned activity, they will be taught how to hold a debate, the appropriate language to use during the debate, the different roles/responsibilities participants assume in a debate and what sentence prompts they can use to open their arguments, respectfully communicate their points, refute an opponent’s points and conclude their arguments. See the following Power Point for the debate lesson plan:
After students have been taught how to debate, in the same lesson they will engage in an informal debate (read: non-researched debate based on personal experience and general knowledge claims) on the topic: Should capital punishment still exist. At the end of the debate, students will reflect on what transpired in the debate.
Possible discussion questions for reflection include:
Students will then be divided into groups of six to engage in their own formal debates, however, this time the debates will occur in an online forum.
The class will be broken up into four smaller groups and assigned one of the following four topics to research: are social networking sites good for our society; is the use of standardized tests improving education in America; should the drinking age be lowered; do violent video games contribute to youth violence?
After the students have been assigned (or chosen) their topics, they will be shown the following website: http://www.procon.org/ and walked through the features of the site. The information and sources provided on this site will be deconstructed re: their reliability based on the following online reading/research guide that asks students to identify important items like author’s credentials and biases:
Students will then be instructed to take the online reading/research guide and do some research of their own. In addition to the ProCon website, the students will be required to find at least three additional reputable sources to include in their debate.
As a tool to help students, they will be directed to: http://edu.symbaloo.com/mix/debateresearch where webmixes have been created for each topic. Here the students will be walked through how to sign upfor symbaloo and use the site, curating their information in one place.
Once they are in the program, they will be directed to their topic/webmix wall and asked to sign-up and use https://www.diigo.com/ to annotate and highlight their sources and then link their diigo notes to their webmix page in order to share their information with their debate group. Students will use the following screencast to learn about diigo:
Finally, the students will learn how to use the discussion forum tool using the following screencast:
They will be walked through the following model post:
http://digiuri.yuku.com/topic/7/Debate-Instructions-and-Model-Post and reminded how to positively and productively conduct themselves in an online forum: what language to use, how to include various sources to support claims and how to structure particular responses.
The groups will also be assigned the following debate roles (either by the teacher or the groups can self-assign):
- Claim checkers: these students check claims are supported by facts and then check the sources (all students)
- Moderators: moderate how students positively interact with one another (all students)
- Opening arguments (one for each side. These people also need to make 2 rebuttal statements, supported with evidence)
- Rebuttal people (these people make 3 rebuttals)
- Closing arguments (one for each side. These people also need to make 2 rebuttal statements, supported with evidence)
When the students have chosen their topic and been assigned their roles, they will spend time both in class and at home to research their topic, marking up their web links using diigo and linking their information to the central symbaloo site in order to share their information, knowledge and resources with their group mates. If there are some more tech. savvy students in the class, a possible extension activity would be to have the students synthesize some of the supporting statistics into an infographic using www.infogr.am/
Students will then spend time crafting their opening arguments. In order to tap into students' out of school literacies (and mirror many of the writing restrictions common in the online world), the opening arguments will be limited to 140 characters, as in a Tweet, and posted on the forum.
The online debate schedule will then be as follows:
Over the weekend: Two individual reflections will be written – the first, a written response comparing the face-to-face debate and the online discussion forum debate (the affordances and drawbacks of both). Students will specifically address the following questions and writing prompts: what did you like and dislike about each format when engaging in a deliberative discussion/debate? Students may reference the synchronous aspect of a face-to-face discussion versus the asynchronous aspect of the online format. Students may also discuss how messages can be misinterpreted in online space where context, voice inflection, body language and so on are removed. They may also reference and deconstruct the informal, unsupported in-class debate they had at the beginning of the unit and compare the structure/the way that debate transpired versus the well-supported online discussion. How did having evidence elevate the quality of the debate, the points raised and the overall interactions?
The second reflection requires the students to use screencast-o-matic. Using the audio/video recording features, students will go to the discussion forum and provide a brief analysis of their debate, their contributions and what transpired. Did students apply the debating and productive discussion format they were taught? Was it effective? Why or why not?
Longterm/cross subject application of these online debates: students will have the skills to positively interact with one another in an online forum, bring in reputable sources to advance the conversation and engage in knowledge generation.
CONTENT
Topics: Are social networking sites good for our society; Should the death penalty be used; Is the use of standardized tests improving education in America; Should the drinking age be lowered; Do violent video games contribute to youth violenceTexts: Scholarly articles, online newspapers, scholarly journal articles, original manuscripts scanned into an online database, infographics, images and photos from reputable news sources
PEDAGOGY
Instructional Strategies: Guided discovery, Inquiry based learning, Problem based learning, Scaffolding, Modeling, Independent research, Collaborative learning, Peer teaching, Active Learning, Think-alouds, Meta-cognitive reflection practices
Tools: http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/
http://www.procon.org/
www.screencast-o-matic.com
Prompt phrases
Graphic organizers
Guiding questions
Computers
Internet
Online discussion forum
Symbaloo
Gooru
Diigo
ASSESSMENT
Work Products: In-class structured debate, online structured debate, students research and planning notes from the scaffolded guided research.
How Measure: Students will be evaluated both in-class and online. Two rubrics will be provided to evaluate the students on the following…
In-person:
4: Lead the debate by making multiple clear claims that were well supported with specific and thought- provoking detail. Student spoke clearly and respectfully, directly responding to ideas made by fellow classmates.
3: Participated by speaking in class, has made a clear claim that has been supported by relevant and accurate detail. The student spoke clearly and respectfully.
2: Student spoke less than twice in the debate, but used supporting details. Student spoke clearly and/or respectfully, but not in the majority of circumstances.
1: Student only made unsupported claims, did not speak clearly and/or respectfully throughout the debate.
On-line:
4: Lead the debate by making multiple clear claims that were well supported with specific and thought- provoking detail. Student wrote clearly and respectfully, directly responding to ideas made by fellow classmates.
3: Participated by writing in class, has made a clear claim that has been supported by relevant and accurate detail. The student wrote clearly and respectfully.
2: Student wrote less than twice in the debate, but used supporting details. Student wrote clearly and/or respectfully, but not in the majority of circumstances.
1: Student only made unsupported claims, did not speak clearly and/or respectfully throughout the debate.
Cool Tool Review and Lesson:
Below you'll find a link to download my review of the Screencast O'Matic tool. This tool has a bevy of applications, but I think one of its most important uses for student learning is working on metacognition so that students can watch themselves "think" and other students can see how peers mentally approach a similar task. My mini-lesson uses this Screencast O'Matic as part of an inquiry based approach to exploring the impact of Hammurabi's Code of Law. Exhibit A is a graphic organizer that is used in conjunction with this project.
Reflection Questions:
1) Describe some of the digital literacies that you learned about this week. What did you know about these topics before the week began and how have this week’s experiences contributed to your understanding of these digital literacies?
Those of you who have made it through our Design Studio project have read enough. I want to give your eyes a rest and give you the opportunity to listen to the soothing sound of my voice. My mother tells me I have the perfect face for Podcasts. :-) Enjoy.
2) Now that you’ve had this professional development experience, how are you defining “digital literacy?” What is your personal perspective on digital literacy and how has your definition changed or evolved this week? Where possible, make specific connections to readings, conversations, presentations, or activities that were especially important to the evolution of your definition of digital literacy.
As I reflected back on my time at the Summer Institute, I realized that my original definition of digital literacy, like the Prezi, was just the tip of the ice berg. I've created this Prezi to articulate my growth over the week.
3) How do digital literacies affect the way you think about academic content? Describe an example of how some specific academic content is affected by changes in the ways we read, write and think with digital media texts, tools & technologies.
4) How do digital literacies affect teaching practices? What overarching considerations must teachers give, in general, to the interactions of digital literacies and how to teach? Now, focus on your own pedagogical practice. How will your new understanding of digital literacy affect the way you teach? Describe an example of how you will differently employ a specific teaching practice in your own context as a result of what you learned this week.
As I reflected on these questions, my thoughts kept turning back to the Harris and Hoffer Article Instructional Planning Activity Types as Vehicles for Curriculum-Based TPACK Development. Much like the authors, I believe that use of technology in the classroom should be dependent on content and pedagogical goals. The article identifies three overlaps of technology, pedagogy and content knowledge: Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) or how to teach particular content-based material, Technical Content Knowledge (TCK) or selecting technology to communicate content knowledge, and Technical Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK )or the use of technology when teaching based on pedagogical goals. (pg.2) To effectively implement this TPAC approach, one must “begin with the end in mind” and select the desired learning outcomes prior to considering what technology to use. The rationale is to avoid instruction that is “technocentric” where the tools and applications are driving the learning goals rather using technology as a tool to obtain greater understanding. (Papert, 1987).
Previously, I have been guilty of being the technocentric teacher. In a desire to increase engagement or impress administrators, I have wedged digital tools into lessons for the sake of using technology. I built a lesson around SmartResponse clickers for one of my evaluations to show how I was using technology in the classroom. I designed a list of 7 questions that, due to the nature of this technology, had to be multiple choice. Given the time it took for the students to activate their clickers, cycle through the questions and give appropriate wait time, the activity burned 20 minutes of class time and the end result was that they could answer lower-level Blooms content questions. While engagement was high and admin was pleased, I look back at the activity and think we could have better utilized that time with a class discussion centered around a single essential question.
Over the last year, I have shifted away from selecting tools until I have considered what I want my students to be able to do. The institute has only reinforced these beliefs. My preferred method is open-ended inquiry projects where students are able to research content-related question of their choice and while also deciding the preferred method of sharing what they have learned. Question design often overwhelms students, as they are accustomed to answering questions, not posing them. Also, the freedom to chose the method of communication can be a daunting one. As a teacher, I adjust to this anxiety by giving a “menu” of presentation options based on certain skills they need to develop, rather than an endless buffet. The Harris and Hofer article presents a comprehensive list of pedagogically sound activity types and potential tech tools to complete those activities. My students have created a wide variety of authentic end products ranging from museum exhibit design, to video news program to building a multimedia wikispace on ancient civilizations. While I do not let the tools drive the inquiry process or products, I keep an open mind to review new tools that will create thought provoking opportunities for students to be innovative and creative.
In summary, teachers face a daunting task of selecting the right technology for the right educational purpose. As Harris and Hofer explain, having knowledge of just content and pedagogy is not enough to be an effective educator. Teachers must think of themselves as connoisseurs of educational tools, both digital and traditional, holding out for the right ones for their students. They must be savvy enough to weave through the abundance of tech marketing and the overcome the fear of “falling behind” on the latest tools. As Shawn Rubin reminded us during the Teacher Leader Panel, trying to keep up with technology is an exercise in futility. The TPAC model is a powerful heuristic so to aid in this process so that education will remain technology enhanced rather than technology driven.
5) During the week, you were introduced to several concerns and promising practices around digital literacy, digital pedagogy, social networking, and student voice that are circulating among communities of educators, librarians, and youth media specialists. From your perspective, what promising practices show the most potential? Which specific concerns are most pressing? What key takeaways will you champion in your own work setting(s) so that together, you and your colleagues can (a) implement promising practices and (b) address issues of concern?
I saw this Prezi template and thought it was a perfect match for the question. Both the promising practices and the great concerns carry significant weight and often seem to be on the verge of colliding. The solution, much like the one in this Prezi, lies somewhere in the middle.
6) During the week, you were introduced to several concerns and promising practices around digital literacy, digital pedagogy, social networking, and student voice that are circulating among communities of educators, librarians, and youth media specialists. From your perspective, what promising practices show the most potential? Which specific concerns are most pressing? What key takeaways will you champion in your own work setting(s) so that together, you and your colleagues can (a) implement promising practices and (b) address issues of concern?
Digital Literacies in Context:
Big Idea 1: We have a strong desire to be connected, but only on our own terms – Turkle
Big Idea 2: Digital technology was supposed to allow us to work in asyncrhonos time, but instead of giving us more time, connectivity has created an endless stream of interruption. -- Rushkoff
One might think the opening to a Digital Literacy Institute would start with readings that were gung-ho about using technology. However, this audience didn’t need convincing. While I didn't recognize it after the fact, these reading were exactly what I needed given some of my habits. Doug Rushkoff and Sharon Turkle’s presentations serve as a crucial reminder of the consequences of blindly using technology.
Turkle’s talk focuses on the impact that technology has had on human relationships. She argues that digital technology has allowed us to stay connected, but on our own terms. We give our attention in only the amounts we want to provide, but assume everyone is listening. The goal is to never feel alone. However, the use of technology has actually made feel more alone as we avoid conversation and opt for text communication. We forget that by having conversations with others, it allows us to learn more about ourselves. These conversations cannot occur in “sips” of status updates or tweets, but only during face-to-face interactions.It is in understanding ourselves that we can be comfortable being by ourself. Thus it becomes increasingly dangerous for children to constantly be engaged in text conversation as they most need to learn how to socialize and converse.
While Ruskoff’s other writings share Turkle’s views, his book Present Shock focuses more on how technology has changed perception of human time. He argues that that instead of looking towards the future, we live in a constant “ 'now' where the priorities of this moment seem to be everything.” (Rushkoff.com) In the late 80's, Rushkoff believed that technology was going to give extended time to communicate. We could download our emails, read and then thoughtfully reply. However, the lingering aspects of the Industrial Age, corporations shifted the use of digital technology for profit, which has resulted in the always-on, consistent desire to be connected as Turkle references in her speech. Digital technology has changed us, he argues, and not for the better.
The solution Rushkoff and Turkle provide is simple but not easy. Reframe our mindset to reform technology to our lives rather than letting technology reform us. I think this dovetails nicely into the education realm and the Haris and Hofer article on TPACK. As educators, we should be purposeful in our use of technology in the classroom, allowing pedagogy to guide our decisions to use, or not use, digital technology. If we can model this thoughtful use of technology to our students we can teach them to selectively use these tools to create a better and sustainable world.
Generating Questions
Essential questions are a pedagogy that a lot of teachers think they implement well, but often do not. Grant Wiggins points out two of the primary reasons why in his article. A) He observes many EQs that are inch or two deep and in order to get to a single right answer. B) The teacher is the only one who is referring to the EQ on a regular basis. I know that I’ve been guilty of (B) on several occasions in my career. Wiggins also laments that he rarely sees the transfer of ownership in questions from teacher to student. I believe this happens because both teachers and students have been trained that a successful class is one in which everyone is able to answer questions on a test. A teacher feels responsible for imparting knowledge to the student, thus the strong desire for control.
However, I know in my heart that the best classes are the ones where we start out with several questions and end the class with entirely new ones. I think Bowker addresses why teachers and students alike enjoy these classes is because we’ve rediscovered the “enjoyment, meaning and value in questions.” The challenge becomes developing a “tolerance for ambiguity” for the class. Bowker explains that success hinges on the idea that “classroom environment must be free, but not too free; safe, but not too safe. The tone may be playful and creative, but the classroom needs enough regularity that chaos is controlled, so students can think, converse, listen, and question without feeling either lost or crushed.” (Bowker, 2010)
While a classroom meeting his description would be fertile ground for students questioning, the process is still a challenge that takes continuous work and patience. One area of research interest is inquiry teaching and models to help students develop deep questions. These readings reflect what I have seen in my own classroom from both teachers and students struggling to deal with the initial ambiguity of searching for answers. It’s akin to the anxiety felt when one is swimming and can no longer touch the bottom. There’s safety in staying in the shallow end, but really discovery comes when one-steps outside of their comfort zone. My goal is to develop ways for both teachers and students to confidently be able to do that with inquiry projects.
Instructional Strategies
Big Idea: Determine your purpose first, then pick your technology.
The last year of my educational practice has been spent designing project based inquiry tasks, which also fostered digital literacy skills. While the readings were a bit of a refresher, I think they were important to helping me complete the design studio project and also think critically about potential interventions for teaching.
As I discussed in Question 4, I thought the TPACK model was particularly helpful in not only defining the overlapping areas of pedagogy, content and technology, but also reaffirming priorities. While some teachers are technophobic, others are equally technocentric in their lesson designs, which makes the tool the focus rather than student learning goals. Focusing on the cool tool is akin to a lesson focusing on the pencil rather than what is written with it. Teachers must view technology as a means to enhance a content-driven, pedagogically-sound lesson or unit.
One area of interest was the online reading comprehension strategies discussed in Reading as Thinking article by Dr. Coiro. Teachers often assume that students can easily use search engines to find information about a given topic. However, generating search terms and then navigating the options can be challenging or even overwhelming for kids. Further, once a child selects a website, there are additional of locating the information they need and determining it’s relevance or accuracy. It is a multi-step, multi-layered process that is more complex than it appears. What I like about this article is that it addresses solutions to these challenges such as teacher think-aloud and pausing students to think about their own approach to finding information. These methods aim to “begin to internalize a metacognitive awareness of the reading and thinking processes required to read both efficiently and critically on the Internet.”(Coiro, 2010).
Dr. Spires article dovetails nicely into Dr. Coiro’s work as we shift from student comprehension into communication of learning. Dr. Spires advocates for Project Based Inquiry, which is defined as problem solving learning, which builds on authentic real-world problems. Similar to the ideas of Wiggins and Bowker, the model is rooted in a compelling question. Students then must gather, analyze and synthesize data using the online reading comprehension. Typically, teachers would then ask students to write a paper, but in a unique twist, Spires’s study utilizes a unconventional type of digital literacy: Cinéma Veritéen, a film based project. While the evaluative and revision aspects are similar to traditional essays, these multi-media projects have been shown to be far more engaging for students.
While technology is present in all four of the articles, the focus is always on student learning. For my own research I would like to continue to build on the research of Dr. Coiro and Dr. Spires to develop and research additional methods of project based inquiry with the goal of making this approach far more common in our schools.
Next Steps:
I read both Dr. Hobb's Plan of Action and Dr. Gaffney's Enhancing Teachers' Take-up of Digital Content. I found them both to be particularly interesting, but Dr. Gaffney's had a few issues that I wanted to discuss, particularly as to the obstacles that prevent the use of technology in schools. There were several big ideas that were crucial to seeing digital literacy grow within schools.
1) Any technological resource needs to be accessible to the whole class or it is likely teachers will not use it.
2) "The Learning Objects are great, but as long as technology isn't up to part, they are a mirages in the desert" (Ex: a classroom set of laptops in a school with few wireless areohives and low broadband) (pg 7).
3) Teachers felt that technology designers did not adopt the teachers perspective or fully take into account the needs of schools when designing tools.
4) Schools that lack the culture with an openness to change for the betterment of students will have a difficulty adopting technology or any approach that asks people to work in a different manner.
5) Successful implementation of technology requires leadership, access to hard and software, professional development and training and adequate tech support. No singular factor will lead to good use of technology in education, but the combination of all these aspects will greatly increase the chance of success.
Given these findings, the task appears daunting. There are many moving parts to this equation, many of them expensive. I believe that the answer begins with leadership in a model that was presented to us on the last day of the Institute. In closing, Dr. Hobbs spoke to us about her discovery of servant-leadership where leaders of any organization exist to serve the needs (not the wants) of those he or she is desighnated to lead. Using this approach an educational leader can start by seeking his or her early adopter teachers to discover what they will need in their classroom, taking a bottom up vs. a top down approach to technology purposes. A leader must also seek to serve the "technophobe" to uncover and address their fears so he or she has about utilizing technology so the leader can can serve them as well. The leader must probe to what tools teachers need for current instructional practice and clearly show the link between the two. A leader must find educational time for both teachers and students to get the needed training to limit the frustration associated with failure and encourage growth. Most of all, the leader must be able to ask critical questions and listen more than he or she speaks. An authoritarian, top-down leadership approach will only heighten defenses and insecurities about technology use and fracture the staff. If the leader seeks to serve and fosters a culture of dialogue and openness, he or she will find that the use of technology, like the use of any productive tool, will grow organically and eagerly.
7. If you had one more day in the Institute, what would you like to learn more about and why? How will you leverage your professional learning network and your new digital literacies to explore your remaining questions over the coming year?
If I had one more day at the institute, that's the question I'd be asking. Where do we go now? I have some ideas which center around designing a condensed version of the institute model presenting at conferences or schools for PD. That said, I'd like some ideas on how to get started with that. Could we discuss what symbols and media to use to create interest in this topic beyond the like-minded peers? While some schools will be open to this approach, what do we do with the schools that have teachers and administrators feeling like test prep should be the priority? What if the tools I have aren't the tools that my teachers need? To borrow a biblical reference, how do we go and share the Good News?
The answer, I think is found in the question. Leveraging our professional network becomes so important to be successful education leaders. While we are spread out across the country, we can use technology to continue to communicate with each other and share what has worked in our communities. I also think that the network will be vital to the discovery and sharing of new tools. While we had an abundance of new applications to explore, eventually we'll need new ones to meet changing needs. While I wish we had discussed where to look for these new tools, I feel confident that the collective knowledge of our network will be able provide options. If we trust our training, and reflect on our results, we will be sure to find success.